volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
No, that's not what the Supreme Court said in Bruen v. NY Rifle Ass’n, and it's not how originalism works in general.
For one, much of the amended Constitution was not written at the time of the founding. It would go against originalism to interpret text in a context besides that from which it originated.
But more importantly, this sort of analysis is only needed when there's reasonable dispute over what the text means, as in the 2nd Amendment cases but not as in such free speech cases.
That's not the right read on it, though: it's not taking the institutionalist path but taking the only legal path.
After Trump's election the DOJ had no practical legal path forward.
Rather than waste everyone's time, including his own, he filed the appropriate motions to the court.
You say that as if Garland wasn't the one who appointed Smith.
It's not as if Smith acted on his own. Yes, things were being done behind the scenes before Smith, including the behind the scenes work to make that appointment itself.
There are questions about why Garland moved so slowly, and arguments that it was strategic timing that didn't work out.
As for Cannon, we can be pretty certain that they DID move in that direction internally, but the removal of a judge in a situation like this is nearly impossible, so they were still building the case.
That's not quite how the Supreme Court works in the US system.
The SCOTUS doesn't *do* or undo anything outside of the judicial branch. It only writes opinions, for what they're worth.
It was intentionally deprived of actual power on its own, and it's vital to understand that.
SCOTUS can't change the Constitution, for example. If it rules in opposition to the Constitution, then the ruling is invalid; it doesn't change it.
If the other branches want to act on an invalid ruling and the general public wants to stand behind it, well, we'll do what we do.
@TomWellborn@universeodon.com
@NBAnthony2k There's so much misinformation about what the SCOTUS has been doing.
Based on that? Sure.
But when you actually sit down and read their actual rulings, it tells a much different, often opposite story, that's actually fairly reasonable.
At this point mainstream #Republicans are saying that they know Biden didn't get all those votes legally when he ran against #Trump not because they have evidence of any particular conspiracy, but because come on, Trump is awesome, how could anyone not have voted for him?
I don't have a dog in the fight between Republicans and Democrats, but geez, I really hate to see how far down the #GOP has fallen in the last couple of years.
That kind of imbecilic argument is fit for drunkards at the bar and fifth rate media personalities, but at this point some of the preeminent conservative talkers are laying that down.
This is going to be a hard four years in media.
@steter That's a weird way to describe a democratic election and your strong opposition to letting people vote, democratically, for the people they want.
I'm sorry voters didn't vote the way that you would have commended them to vote? Is that really what you want to hear?
The Democratic party acted. They ran a worthless candidate. And the people voted to reject her. Democratically. This is democracy. This is how democracy works.
I'm sorry you don't personally like the way that people vote, and you're demanding that we throw democracy out the window to fix democracy, but do you realize how insane you sound?
@europesays forgiving money owed is not giving people money.
Rather, it's depriving the creditor.
I really wish more people would realize that Biden wasn't giving anything to anybody, he was just defunding the US government, whether you think that's better or worse, it is what it is.
@Cochise I mean that's just not true though
@FantasticalEconomics You've known mainstream media is owned by right-wing billionaires? Is that similar to how you know the Earth is flat?
No, that's a dumb thing to say. Anyone who knows that has been listening to the wrong echo chambers, the wrong conspiracy theorists.
@shellsharks I mean you say it's not possible but you link to an article talking about the possibility.
The article says it's possible.
So there you go.
@DoomsdaysCW That's not what the legislation would do, though.
I really wish organizations like this would not spread such misinformation.
@francesfish It's the barest notion of accountability we can have
@hamid Yes the keyword there is instance.
It's not centered around you, it's centralized around instances.
@francesfish it doesn't matter who has influence. It doesn't matter what messenger one might want to shoot. It's not relevant.
The US government is designed with safeguards that we shouldn't ignore.
@takeitev I'm glad you recognize that you don't understand
@francesfish No, that's not how the process works.
The Senate decides when it is in recess, not Johnson, not Trump.
@wendysiegelman It's kind of like how restaurants benefit from having better health inspections than other ones.
@asb It's better technology, unfortunately.
@xtaldave wow, axios has apparently shifted to not even bothering to tell the whole story, devolving into only the processed bullet points that it puts at the top.
Notice very strikingly that it didn't bother with full quotes in context.
Axios is trash. We should all see the red flags when reading this kind of clickbait headline and sensationalized story.
This is not good for the country.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
